Talk:John Hall (US politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
John Hall (US politician) is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
??? This article has not yet been assigned a subject.
The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."

Does anyone know what years he married and divorced Johanna Hall (who was also his songwriting partner)? I'm guessing about 1970 and 1986 respectively from what little information I've been able to glean. Probably wouldn't hurt to include some information about his present wife, Pamela. --Mwalimu59 17:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] photo

The article is entitled John Hall (musician), and I would argue that Hall is more famous as a musician than a politician. Should there be a more prominent (maybe even the main?) picture of him in Orleans? - Che Nuevara 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There should be if he loses the election! Otherwise, he will doubtless soon be better known as a politician. - Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If people want, I have a great photograph of John Hall on the Campaign trail playing his guitar...in this fashion, you get the best of both worlds, as he is playing his guitar, but is wearing starched shirt and tie. Leave a note on the Congressman John Hall Blog and let me know. (http://congressmanjohnhall.blogspot.com/)

[edit] Need to change name

It should no longer be John Hall singer, but now something like "John Hall (politician)" Chivista 14:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree we should have a name change, but there are several other John Halls who are/were politicians. I'd suggest either John Hall (Congressman) or John Hall (New York politician). MK2 06:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't want to use 'congressman', as we'd have to change it in the future if he gets a different office. Does Wiki policy allow John Hall (politician/musician) or John Hall(politician_musician)? He has fame from both areas. If not, John Hall (New York politician), or maybe just John Hall (NY politician) is the way to go.Simon12 15:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) does not have an answer, except that "[s]ometimes a little extra creativity is needed". In this case I would go for John Hall (musician and politician). John Hall (New York politician) is acceptable too, but a little misleading if someone is looking for information on the singer. 145.222.138.134 20:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. It says punctuation is to be avoided, so I think John Hall (musician and politician) makes the most sense. Simon12 03:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In any case, John Hall (musician) will be retained as a redirect. - Jmabel | Talk 02:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: To move John Hall (musician) to John Hall (politician and musician). Please comment/vote. Simon12 18:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved it there last week [correction: I moved it to John Hall (musician and politician)], but User:Jerzy moved it back with the following edit summary "His old Dab'n is still effective for disambiguation, and the purpose of Dab'g sfxes is not as a micro-bio but to Dab'ate". Though I see his point, I still support a move, because it's simply a better and more accurate name. Skarioffszky 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I missed that. While the current disambig works from a technical point of view, the current disambig name is going to cause confusion going forward, as people who only know Hall as a politician will get confused when his disambig suffix is '(musician)'. If we don't change this now, it will continue to be an issue as Hall moves farther away from his musician roots. I would ask User:Jerzy and anybody else to please make their view known here to see if we can reach consensus. Simon12 22:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

My aplogies. I had moved it to John Hall (New York) without checking the talk page first... It's consistent with John Hall (Maryland), so I thought it was a good idea. - crz crztalk 04:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is, this one was born in Maryland and earned his original fame with a band named after a different city that toured nationally. He's not very associated with New York, except through the most recent campaign. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Orleans were New York-based (Ithaca, I believe) and toured mostly in the Northeast; and he's been active in New York politics for about 25 years, both as an activist and a politician. I don't think it is a bad choice, as long as we also redirect other reasonable choices. - Jmabel | Talk 07:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the people refuse to ratify post-factum my unilateral invasion of John Hall, then I will take responsibility and help change over all the stuff again when a target is chosen. - crz crztalk 07:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
How about John Hall (Orleans and New York)? Just kidding. John Hall (New York) is acceptable, but I still think the move proposed by Simon is the best solution. Skarioffszky 08:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm OK with John Hall (New York). It's not misleading like (musician) now is, it's more consistent with other disambig names, and, most importantly, it's done. Simon12 14:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
That is all true. Skarioffszky 15:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How long is Congressman John Hall going to be unfairly known by, and be referenced by his previous career as a Musician? If you read news articles, he (unfairly) cannot escape having his "Still The One" and "Orleans"references in the article at some point...enough already. He's been involved in politics for some time now, as President of the Board of Education, and as a County Legislature...isn't it time that this part of his life gets the recognition? (http://congressmanjohnhall.blogspot.com/)

[edit] His opponent is not conceding yet

She says: 'It's not over.' and she is demanding a recount. I think it should be elaborated in the article.--Wealthy 18:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Ahm... in that same article you linked to it says, "Campaign staffer Jim O’Neill said Kelly wouldn’t request a recount, but her lawyers wanted to review the result. “It’s that close,” O’Neill said."caz | speak 06:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

She has now conceded see www.johnhallforcongress.com.128.135.230.116 20:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No, they were not nude

John has explained that when they album cover photo was shot, it was suggested that they pose shirtless. They were all wearing jeans, but the photo was cropped below their waists. I have removed the nude reference from the article. Joegoodfriend 17:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate pages

Someone just copied this page and put it at John Hall, then moved the previous page to John Hall (disambiguation). Renaming this page was being discussed above, but no decision was reached. Also, I don't think our good congressman deserves the John Hall page to himself anyway. I've been watching the links to the old page, and is also always getting a lot of links from the football player John Hall. Can the move be undone, or do we need an admin involved? Simon12 04:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed now. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanadalism/Reverted

It appears this page was vandalized by a high school student registered as User:Jqpr I registered in order to correct this. I hope I did it right. I tried to revert to the most recent article before this person's edits. If I did anything wrong, please respond so I know in the future what to do/how to do it...

Symbioid 05:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Majority Action ads and needs citation

"He was assisted in this bid by the $500,000 donated by Adam Rose, an openly gay real-estate developer who inherited his fortune from his father, to an independent left-wing group called Majority Action. This group ran negative advertisements against Sue Kelly calling her a "coddler of pedophiles" in reference to the Mark Foley scandal." I don't remember them running ad against her saying she was a coddler of pedophiles... if this is the case, which i greatly doubt, please revert my edit and add some sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrMacMan (talk • contribs) 10:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

I do not specifically recall the "coddler of pedophiles" wording but I do recall campaign ads that criticized Kelly for her service as chairman of the House Page Board when Foley was alleged to have made improper contacts with Pages. To confirm the quote one would have to get a copy or transcription of the ad(s), or at least research stories in The Journal-News, which is the daily newspaper that covered the race closely.--Ana Nim 14:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment I'm going to assume that the coddler of pedophiles came from the Kelly campaign unless cited otherwise. I believe Kelly said that Majority Action and Hall were TRYING to make her out as a 'coddler...' but nevertheless Kelly would be a biased opinion as she was a candidate. BTW, The Journal-News is not the only local paper -- there is also PoJo (but they didn't cover the race enough). Until other sources are listed I'm going to guess my edit is ok. MrMacMan 16:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

John Hall did not benefit by a $500,000 donation from Adam Rose...Adam Rose and openly gay real estate developer, like many people such as the group Take 19, or the Sue Kelly Poop Sheet spent money on the campaign to DEFEAT Sue Kelly...the fact that John Hall indirectly benefitted is not the issue, as who ever the Democratic nominee was would have benefitted from the Districts dislike of Sue Kelly's rubber stamp endorsement of the Tom DeLay/George Bush agenda...I wrote about this very issue on a blog tracking John Hall's Congress career over a month ago. (http://congressmanjohnhall.blogspot.com/)

[edit] Indian Point

I have noticed that at least one editor is keen on including the power plant in as many place as possible. Do people who know about Hall know whether the plant is a big deal in his district? If so, can someone put a longer section on this contrioversy? It looks like there is more than we can read currently. As an issue of public concern it would be notable. Chivista 14:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

    • There is a blog out there trying to slander Hall (with recent updates on wikipedia to boot) about his so far limited action to close indian point. Future editors should watch out for a blogs and biased views from this point forward. 148.100.212.208 03:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC) MrMacMan 05:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Indian Point is a BIG item in John Hall's district, as Entergy is attempting to relicense the facility beginning in March of this year.

More interesting, MrMAcMan commented on the very blog he is complaining about, the blog that has been on this page since it was first formed Congressman John Hall while replacing it with a blog he himself is associated with, that is more progressive and centrist in nature...the same people (Progressive Wave) who have a FLEET OF BLOGS aimed at pulling Freshman Members of Congress into the center.

  • Um... would you like to tell me who is speaking since you don't reveal your identity? And don't make it seem like I have anything to do with Progressive wave. I did not replace your blog. You can of coarse check who did under the 'History' Section of a page. Notice that i did not replace your blog it was a thing called 'other users' who replaced your blog because (I believe, you would have to ask them yourself) your blog is named 'Congressman John Hall' and the usual assumption one can reach if that this IS the blog of the congressman... which it wasn't. Anyway it would be nice if I knew who i was speaking to. MrMacMan 23:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Link edits

Alright, I want to post this here as record. Several parties and '68.199.24.163' have been going back and forth reverting changes to the external links section. I don't think that a blog against Congressman Hall should be tagged as if it were his official blog. Others have deleted the entry outright, I have made changes to the name. Anyone want to weight in? MrMacMan 16:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete the entry outright. WP:EL forbids links like these. Hbdragon88 03:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please cite article titles with links

I've had to replace a link to an unnamed, undated NY Daily News article — apparently supporting either Hall's support for gay marriage or Rose's reasons for contributing to Hall — with a "citation needed" {{fact}} tag because the link is broken, it hasn't been archived at Internet Archive, and without any article title or even a quote, there's no practical way to determine the original claimed source. Folks, this is why we take the trouble to do full citations. Bare links are notorious for expiring, and they provide no information that allows editors to fix or replace them. If you can at least provide an article title, you give verifiers some hope of fixing problems. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Extreme liberal' ?

So one editor believes that Congressman Hall can be classified as an 'extreme liberal' -- while I never heard this term used I would assume he means that Hall is not only a Liberal but more a Ultra-Liberal. The edits are made here I believe that Hall doesn't have the voting record to classify himself as one of the 'most liberal' members of Congress and having a platform doesn't mean that he is going to follow through on them. Such sites as the National Journal publish the 2006 most liberal congress people list here and Diane Watson is listed first and she doesn't even have the word 'liberal' appear on her article page. What do we think? MrMacMan Talk 14:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

John Hall is the congressman of my district, and here is a fairly suburban conservative area. So he can't be that liberal comparing to those congresspersons from urban California. I think John Hall is more close to those centrist Democrat rather than "ultra-liberal", or else he wouldn't be elected here. I hope he would be more liberal than our average, though, just hope. WooyiTalk, Editor review 15:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
To be fair Hall has joined the 'Congressional Progressive Caucus' which is a more left of center group rather than the 'Blue Dogs' who are a more centrist group -- but to call him an 'extreme liberal' would need the claim to be 'extreme[ly] sourced' IMHO. MrMacMan Talk 19:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It could never be sourced as an objective fact because it's inherently an opinion. We can simply state the objective fact that he's joined the Progressive Caucus. Its very name will tell the reader that it represents the left wing of the Congress (which isn't necessarily the left wing of the country). Anyone who wants more information can follow the wikilink and read about the Caucus. JamesMLane t c 17:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, plus it's hard to determine a congressman's position unless he serves for a long time and leave an extensive records. WooyiTalk to me? 17:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voting Record Edit

The recent edits adding an analysis of Hall's voting record violates several wikipedia policies:

1. Verifiability. The editor provides no verification that Hall "voted exactly the way Democratic leaders told him to."
2. No original research The "99.3%" does not appear to come from any reliable source, but from the editor's own analysis. If the figure did appear in the Washington Post in some context, it is not properly sourced, and I doubt very much that the Post said that Hall voted 99.3% of the time the way he was "told to."
3. Citing Sources All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used. This applies to the analysis in #2 above. The citation on the first sentence, the DCCC stats, is also incomplete and unverifiable as is.
4. Neutral point of view The editor's suggestions that the way Hall cast his votes was either the way he was "told to" or in a "rare" manner is a case of a certain point of view being presented as factual truth. Joegoodfriend 03:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)